No.
This game clearly expects it's customers to have no problems doing math in their heads, to a significantly higher level than 5th Edition.
Claiming anything else is just misleading.
There's enough exceptions that the "three weapon lines" idea didn't pan out in practice for us. Part of the fun of playing a weapon wielder is the feats that let you vary your routine.
Then there's special weapon traits that come across as incredibly petty for a 5E gamer, but here are clearly intended to be a meaningful addition to your offensive.
Take Sweep for instance. If you switch targets with an axe, you get a +1. In practice, this means you make one attack at +0 then a second at -4 instead of -5.
Definitely don't play a Ranger if you plan on having one line for every possible attack modifier. You can easily end up with three weapons (two melee, one ranged) and all the numbers change depending on whether the target is marked, you're making a twin takedown, using agile weapons, weapons with different fundamental runes, etc etc etc.
Then you have all the conditions imposed on you by poison, disease, curses and the like. Being hit with -1 to attacks, or mental saves, or physical maneuvers is not rare at all. Once past the lowest levels, it happens every session.
Resistance and weakness to damage is not uncommon. Calculating damage as (3d8+12+1d6)X2+1d8+10 is not just something I made up, it can definitely happen, several times in a single combat round in fact. (A greater striking weapon with an acid rune dealing a crit with a fatal weapon against a monster with weakness 10, in this particular case.)
It's just so much more honest to be upfront with the math demand.
I don't have a problem with 23+3-1+2-1+1 type calculations (except when late at night and my brain is mush), but if your friend does, do him a favor and stick to 5E.
Cheers
Higher than 5th edition? Sure. I guess adding a few more modifiers besides Advantage/Disadvantage,
bless, and magic item modifiers is higher. There are more rules to understand.
If the person is hit with poisoned, diseased, cursed, frightened, sickened, or what not, those are all status penalties and only the highest number will apply. It could have ten conditions with penalties and only the highest number will apply.
Real game play in PF2 will look something like the following:
Enemy: Stone Giant.
Target is flanked: -2 circumstance penalty to AC
Target is frightened 2: -2 status penalty to AC
Target is sickened 1: Doesn't matter, frightened status penalty is higher. Ignore.
Swing with +2 long sword by lvl10 fighter with master proficiency and 20 strength. (Should be worked out by your player prior to playing)
To hit roll: +23 to hit
Giant AC 31 -2 AC status frightened -2 circumstance flanked =AC 27
Swing: +23/18/13 for three attacks with -5 MAP per attack to a maximum of -10.
The players may add in a status bonus provided by a player like a bard song.
It's more work than 5E, far less work than PF1. It's really not that hard. I don't know why people try to make it seem hard. Most PF DMs will make these things very easy for the players. I run the game all the time. I don't have any trouble with the modifiers. Now PF1 was a beast of a game for modifiers. That got truly insane. PF2 is three modifiers to track with MAP.
I would just give it a try with someone. See how you like it. See for yourself how it all works. I can't imagine my group is particularly special in their ability to do basic addition and subtraction with some occasional multiplication and division. Making PF2 sound like scary math is a little weird to me.